Advantages of commentators not calling the match?

[lewis1711]

Is there any reason for it?

It's negatives seem obvious. Every time there's a match on between two wrestlers who aren't in the main event, barely any attention is paid to the match. The commentators spend all their time talking about irrelevant shit, hyping the main event, or arguing with each other. Two mid-carders could put on a god damn clinic (and often do) and it won't feel the least bit important at all, or even worth watching. I am shocked by how much apathy I've had towards some great pairings for this very reason. I especially miss the way JR used to say stuff like "Shawn is the more explosive of the two, but Owen I believe is more technically sound" which sold the contest aspect of it so much more.

So I have to ask, what's the upside? What does it do positively for the show as a whole?

[JCBaggee]

Makes it easier for new fans to keep up.

[Henry Mark]

I don't know the show as a whole, but sometimes it's just funny. They'll start cracking jokes to each other or whatnot. I can be entertaining and have nothing to do with the match going on. DISHRAG!

[kamero00]

JR was SO good at telling the story of a match. Cole can do it to, he just gets caught up in other stuff, and he seems easily distracted.

[molson5]

I don't think they do this as much as they used to.

As far as the advantages when it is done, they're trying to push the biggest, most compelling stories and future matches throughout the show. On a TV show or movie, you can have subplots, but you don't want to wander away from the major plots for too long. I remember in the 80s when a major storyline went down on the TV show, the announcers would still be buzzing about it during the next match, which made what just happened seem more important - at the expense of a Dino Bravo squash match or something.

[Mozenrath]

Jan 11, 2013 2:34:50 GMT -5 molson5 said:

I don't think they do this as much as they used to.

As far as the advantages when it is done, they're trying to push the biggest, most compelling stories and future matches throughout the show. On a TV show or movie, you can have subplots, but you don't want to wander away from the major plots for too long. I remember in the 80s when a major storyline went down on the TV show, the announcers would still be buzzing about it during the next match, which made what just happened seem more important - at the expense of a Dino Bravo squash match or something.

Pretty much.

It is not terrible if it is done well. If it is done in a way to make the announcers look apathetic about the show as a whole outside of key parts, then that is bad.

[RowdyRobbyPiper]

Jan 11, 2013 2:34:50 GMT -5 molson5 said:

I don't think they do this as much as they used to.

As far as the advantages when it is done, they're trying to push the biggest, most compelling stories and future matches throughout the show. On a TV show or movie, you can have subplots, but you don't want to wander away from the major plots for too long. I remember in the 80s when a major storyline went down on the TV show, the announcers would still be buzzing about it during the next match, which made what just happened seem more important - at the expense of a Dino Bravo squash match or something.

And yet Vince and Jesse would always get back to that Dino Bravo squash or at least give the impression that they are keeping an eye on it.

How about ditching the "storytelling" and get back to calling it like a sport.

[Bo Rida]

Regal talked about this on The Art Of Wrestling podcast, he said it's often because what's going on in the ring is so sloppy they try and distract people from it. I seem to remember he was especially wound up by poorly applied and lazy submission holds.
Of course the commentators often do the same thing during good matches too.

The annoying thing is they're actually pretty poor about telling the story too, there's no explaining why people are doing the moves they're doing, they make little effort to cover for mistakes and ignore past history.

Then there's the conspiracy reasons.
wweyki.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/vince-mcmahon-great-dictator.html

[The Sam]

In Heenan's Highspots shoot from around 10 years ago, he talked about how commentators are unnecessary for TV. Commentators in sports goes back to the radio where you needed a commentator to explain what was happening to the people listening, but with TV it's unnecessary because you can see what is happening.

A lot of indy promotions (ROH, PWG, etc) have an option on their DVD's where you can turn the commentary off.

[Mozenrath]

Jan 11, 2013 5:11:27 GMT -5 The Sam said:

In Heenan's Highspots shoot from around 10 years ago, he talked about how commentators are unnecessary for TV. Commentators in sports goes back to the radio where you needed a commentator to explain what was happening to the people listening, but with TV it's unnecessary because you can see what is happening.

A lot of indy promotions (ROH, PWG, etc) have an option on their DVD's where you can turn the commentary off.

A solid suggestion for ROH, in my experience, unless you need a nap.

[TheDarkestKnight]

Jan 11, 2013 5:01:40 GMT -5 Bo Rida said:

Regal talked about this on The Art Of Wrestling podcast, he said it's often because what's going on in the ring is so sloppy they try and distract people from it. I seem to remember he was especially wound up by poorly applied and lazy submission holds.
Of course the commentators often do the same thing during good matches too.

The annoying thing is they're actually pretty poor about telling the story too, there's no explaining why people are doing the moves they're doing, they make little effort to cover for mistakes and ignore past history.

Then there's the conspiracy reasons.
wweyki.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/vince-mcmahon-great-dictator.html

Thinking about what Regal is saying, it does make sense to a degree. I know for a fact my wrestling trainers pet peeve is poorly applied submissions, or lack of selling from the aggressor when putting them on.

So commentators speaking about something else perhaps distracts the audience from picking up on these things.

[Zaq "That Guy" Buzzkill]

I remember watching an episode of Sunday Night Heat back in 2003/2004 when Coach and Al Snow were on commentary. During one match (I think it was a squash with somebody, can't remember) Coach/Snow were talking about a Raw story line when suddenly a power move/pin attempt happened in the match and they broke off whatever they were talking about to call it.
Instantly afterwards Al Snow said "I hate it when wrestlers interrupt our conversations" or something like that. It was hilarious.

[hitch]

The upside is that you hype up the more important elements of the show. It's important to rememebr that just as a book you need narrative light and shade. You cannot pretend everything is as serious as a heart attack (no Lawler jokes, please) because if you do that storyline/event/match you're building towards won't seem as big a deal.

I dislike the commentary style that tries to convince the audience that every match is important. Chatting about other things makes the real important matches have greater emphasis.